Best ways to decide games

So two of the elimination games thus far at the World Cup have been decided on penalty kicks. Exciting, dramatic finishes, to be sure. Also, a terrible way to lose an elimination game.

So the debate ensues: when a game is tied and cannot end in a tie (because one team has to advance), what is the best way to break the tie? Should it be penalty kicks/shots, such as is used in the World Cup or Olympics? Or should the teams continue to play for however long necessary until one team scores, such as the Stanley Cup Playoffs?

Are different methods better for different sports and, if so, why?

 

Different sports, different solutions.

 

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

 

Would prefer to see the elimination rounds of the World Cup be sudden death after regulation and not go to PKs.

At the very least, make the final that way.

PKs certainly offer great drama and tension, but would rather see the winner settled in the standard course of play.

 

We'd all prefer games to be decided in the run of play, rather than PKs. But fatigue is a huge factor in extra time. I couldn't imagine quality soccer being played in a second extra time session.

 

Mixed feelings on this one.

There's part of me that says just play until someone wins. I don't know if that's fair or realistic though, especially with hockey and soccer. I also remember how exciting the 1994 WC final, the 1999 Women's WC Final and the US-Russia hockey game this year were while going to penalty kicks/shots.

With the limited substitutions in soccer, I think that would make it especially difficult to do.

 

Channeling Ann Coulter ...

 

Games would go 300 minutes and still no goals. Maybe they could do "first player to die, his team loses."

I've always hoped for an extra two substitutions at the start of overtime. But other than that, I don't think there's anything to be done.

 

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

 

Have special, wider and taller overtime goals. Play 10-minute overtime periods, and as they go by without a winner the goals get bigger and bigger.

Or how about this? As we go further into overtime, the teams play with fewer and fewer players. Allow substitutions between periods (that get shorter as we go on and on), but eventually we wind up with three (two and a goalie) on three.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have ever seen.